Reverent Catholic worship is under pressure. Now is not the time to be fighting each other.
There is a phrase that has circulated in traditional Catholic circles for the better part of a decade, spoken with increasing urgency since Traditionis Custodes landed like a hammer blow in the summer of 2021: Unite the Clans.
It is borrowed imagery: Scottish Highland clans, ancient and proud, who share blood and ancestry and yet feud among themselves while their common enemies grow stronger. The application to traditional Catholicism is uncomfortable precisely because it is accurate. The Priestly Fraternity of Saint Peter. The Institute of Christ the King. The Society of Saint Pius X, whose ministers Rome declared in schism in July 2026, and whose case is treated separately below. The Institute of the Good Shepherd. The diocesan Latin Mass community. All of them kneeling before the same altar, singing the same chant, offering the same ancient sacrifice, and all of them, to varying degrees, operating in separate and sometimes suspicious isolation from one another.
Unite the Clans is a call to stop that.
But there is an extension of this call that does not get made often enough, and it should be made directly. The call to unity must extend to our brothers and sisters in the reform-of-the-reform movement: those faithful Catholics who attend the Novus Ordo, who love it, who are working from within it to restore its reverence, its Latin, its sacred orientation, its dignity. They are not our rivals. They are not the enemy. They are, in every meaningful sense, our allies, and we need each other more than most of us have yet admitted.
The Fragmentation Problem
To appreciate why this unity matters, we have to be honest about what fragmentation costs us.
Traditional Catholics did not lose the liturgical battle of the twentieth century because they were outnumbered. They lost, in large part, because they were divided, and because those directing the reform were not. The progressives who reshaped the liturgy were united around a shared vision, however flawed. They were better organized in the commissions and chanceries that carried the reform forward. Their opponents were not.
We are repeating that mistake in the present moment.
In recent years a number of bishops have gone further than universal law requires, restricting practices that are lawful in the Ordinary Form itself. In Detroit, norms issued in June 2025 were reported to bar ad orientem celebration of the Ordinary Form and to require freestanding altars in parish churches within six months, unless an extension was granted. In Charlotte, a pastoral letter of December 2025 directed that altar rails, kneelers and prie-dieus no longer be used for the reception of Communion in public celebrations, and that movable kneelers be removed by 16 January 2026, while affirming that Communion “cannot be denied” to anyone who kneels; thirty-one priests of the diocese have since submitted questions to the Holy See. In Seattle, norms dating from 2020, before Traditionis Custodes, allow Mass ad orientem with a congregation “only with the express permission of the Archbishop,” and forbid inserting elements of the older form, “whether prayers, gestures, or vesture,” into the Ordinary Form, calling them “hybrid ritual practices.” In Washington, norms issued in 2022 require priests to seek permission to celebrate ad orientem.
Read that list again. The targets are not merely those who celebrate the 1962 Missal. These policies bear on the orientation of the priest at Mass, the posture of the faithful at Communion, and the altar itself. Whatever the intentions behind them, they touch the sacred: reverence, and beauty as a vehicle of divine encounter.
If that is the battlefield, then every Catholic who fights for reverence, whether in the extraordinary or the ordinary form, stands on the same side of it.
What We Have in Common
Both the traditional Latin Mass community and the reform-of-the-reform Novus Ordo community believe that:
The Holy Sacrifice of the Mass deserves the most beautiful worship the Church can offer. Not merely adequate. Not merely valid. Beautiful, with all the weight that word carries in the Catholic tradition, from the lex orandi of the Roman Rite to the theology of Aquinas to the teaching of Benedict XVI, who wrote that beauty “is not mere decoration, but rather an essential element of the liturgical action, since it is an attribute of God himself and his revelation.”
Kneeling before the Blessed Sacrament is not a personal quirk; it is an act of theological confession. When a Catholic kneels to receive the Body of Christ on the tongue, or bows in adoration before the altar, that posture is not nostalgia. It is a creed enacted in the body. When a diocese removes the kneelers that assist that act, it is not making a neutral architectural decision. It is making a theological one. Both traditional and reform-of-the-reform Catholics understand this, feel it, and resist it.
Latin belongs in the Roman Rite. Sacrosanctum Concilium, the very document of the Second Vatican Council that authorized liturgical reform, stated that, “particular law remaining in force, the use of the Latin language is to be preserved in the Latin rites,” while allowing the mother tongue a wider place (n. 36), and that Gregorian chant, being “specially suited to the Roman liturgy,” should, “other things being equal,” be given “pride of place in liturgical services” (n. 116). Neither of these things is a traditionalist invention. They are the actual text of Vatican II. Reform-of-the-reform Catholics are often the ones insisting most loudly on this point (that the Council did not, in fact, mandate what happened afterward), and they are right.
The priest facing God at the altar is not a rubrical accident. Ad orientem worship is not a private preference of eccentric clergy. It is the ancient posture of Christian prayer: priest and people together, facing the Lord, offering sacrifice toward the east in anticipation of His return. The General Instruction of the Roman Missal does not prohibit it. A 2000 clarification from the Congregation for Divine Worship confirmed explicitly that GIRM 299 does not exclude ad orientem celebration. The dioceses that ban it or require permission for it are making a policy choice, not enforcing a liturgical mandate. Both traditional and reform-of-the-reform Catholics know this and resist the misrepresentation.
The bishops who restrict these practices give reasons of their own: that standing is the normative posture for Communion in the United States, that a shared posture expresses the unity of the assembly, and that the General Instruction (n. 299) calls it desirable that Mass can be celebrated facing the people. They also invoke the bishop’s authority as moderator of the liturgy in his diocese. The Church’s universal law permits both practices; whether a bishop may forbid them locally is the question Charlotte’s priests have put to Rome. Charlotte’s letter itself affirms that Communion may not be refused to anyone on account of kneeling.
These are not minor overlapping interests. These are the foundations of an entire liturgical vision; one that both communities share, even if they carry it in different vessels.
A Word About Our Differences
Yes, we have differences. Let us not be naive about them.
Those attached to the Traditional Latin Mass believe, with very good reason, that the Usus Antiquior represents the fullest and most organic expression of the Roman Rite’s liturgical tradition. The weight of the saints, the continuity of many centuries, the thread that runs back through the Fathers: these things matter, and they are not reproduced simply by making the Novus Ordo more reverent. The concern that the Ordinary Form, however beautifully celebrated, represents a rupture in that living tradition is a serious one. It deserves serious engagement, not dismissal.
That question must wait, not because it is unimportant, but because there is a more urgent one before us now: will there be any space at all for reverent worship in the Church of the coming decades? That question cannot wait for the other one to be settled. Indeed, the answer to the other question depends, in part, on the answer to this one. Dioceses that are setting aside altar rails and the eastward posture are not well placed to rediscover the depth of the Church’s ancient tradition.
Those differences are real. Those debates are worth having. But they are not today’s battle. Today’s battle is for the preservation of the sacred in any form, and on that battlefield, we are not opponents.
An Argument for Traditionalists
To those who love the Traditional Latin Mass: the temptation to hold the reform-of-the-reform movement at arm’s length is understandable. You may believe, with justification, that a well-celebrated Novus Ordo, however beautiful, does not fully address the theological problems of the post-conciliar period. That may be true. But consider what you lose by treating reform-of-the-reform Catholics as irrelevant or even adversarial.
These are people who are fighting, from within the parish structures of ordinary Catholic life, for exactly the things you value, Latin, chant, kneeling, ad orientem, reverence, the transcendent. They are doing it at personal cost, in many cases against the resistance of their own pastors and diocesan offices. They are building communities of genuine liturgical renewal. They are raising children who know Gregorian chant and kneel at Communion and understand that the Mass is a sacrifice, not a gathering.
And when ad orientem is restricted in the Ordinary Form, or kneelers are taken out of the Communion line, these communities are being restricted alongside you. Their fight is your fight. Their loss is your loss. A Catholic world in which the reform-of-the-reform has been suppressed and driven out is a Catholic world in which the conditions for any liturgical renewal, including a full return to tradition, are far worse than they are today.
You do not have to agree with their liturgical judgment to recognize that they are your allies. You do not have to pretend the differences do not exist to cooperate in defending what you both hold dear. Unite the clans, yes, even this clan. They are not your enemies. They are your flank.
An Argument for Reform-of-the-Reform Catholics
To those who love a beautifully celebrated Ordinary Form: you may feel a certain distance from the world of the Traditional Latin Mass. Perhaps it feels culturally foreign, or overly political, or associated with attitudes you find uncomfortable. Perhaps you simply prefer the reformed rite, celebrated with the dignity it deserves. That is entirely legitimate.
But consider this: the Traditional Latin Mass community has been fighting this battle far longer than you have, and they have learned things about how it goes that are directly relevant to your situation. They have seen the pattern: permission regimes, and reverence recast as a threat to unity. What is being done to TLM communities today may well be applied to reform-of-the-reform communities tomorrow. In some dioceses, it is already happening.
More than that: the Traditional Latin Mass is not a competing vision of Catholicism. It is the deep root from which your own liturgical aspirations grow. Your love of chant is the love of the Graduale Romanum. Your love of ad orientem is the love of a posture the ancient rite has always kept as its norm. Your love of kneeling at Communion is the love of a discipline the Latin Church kept for many centuries, until very recently. You are not in conflict with tradition; you are reaching toward it. The TLM community is not your adversary in that reaching. They are, in a very real sense, the living witness to where you are trying to go.
Stand with them. Defend them when they are targeted. And let them stand with you.
What Unity Actually Looks Like
No one is asking for a merger of institutions, or a pretense that all disagreements have been resolved. The Fraternity of St. Peter is in full communion with Rome; the Society of St. Pius X never regained it, and since July 2026 its ministers have been declared in schism. The question of the Council and its proper interpretation will continue to be debated by serious Catholics. That is fine. None of that prevents the following:
Mutual respect in speech and writing, refusing to caricature those who share your love of the sacred even when you disagree on specifics. Active solidarity when any community is targeted by restrictive diocesan policies: showing up, speaking out, signing petitions, attending one another’s Masses, within the communion of the Church, as a gesture of charity. Joint witness wherever possible: shared processions, shared devotions, shared voices speaking to bishops and to the broader Church about the rights of the faithful to reverent worship. The simple recognition that we are all, in the end, kneeling before the same Lord, and that our common desire to worship Him in the beauty of holiness is more fundamental than the rites that carry that desire forward. All of this belongs within the communion of the Church.
The Society of St. Pius X needs a word of its own, because its situation has changed. On 2 July 2026 the Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith declared that its ministers “are in schism,” that the confessions they hear and the marriages at which they assist are invalid, and it exhorted all the faithful to refrain from taking part in the Society’s celebrations and activities. That is not a declaration that everyone who attends its Mass is excommunicated. The penalty reaches lay people only if they formally adhere to the Society, and the criteria, set out by the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts in 1996 and adopted by the Dicastery this year, require two things together: “a free and informed agreement with the substance of the schism,” which puts that choice “above obedience to the Pope,” and its outward expression, the clearest sign of which is “exclusive participation in Lefebvrian ‘ecclesial’ acts, without taking part in the acts of the Catholic Church.” Even that outward sign, the Council added, “is not univocal, since there is the possibility that a member of the faithful may take part in the liturgical functions of the followers of Lefebvre but without going along with their schismatic spirit.”
Attendance alone, then, is not formal adherence, and a Catholic who holds fast to the Pope is not, on the Church’s own criteria, excommunicated for attending. Whether he should attend is another question. The only case that can be defended is love of the older Mass where no celebration of it in full communion is within reasonable reach, and even then Rome asks him to refrain. Confession and marriage belong with a priest in communion with the bishop, and the first remedy is to find, or to ask for, the older Mass within the Church. Our page on the Society’s canonical status today sets out the documents in detail.
The clans need not merge. They need only stop treating each other as strangers.
The Stakes
Look again at the list of dioceses. Detroit. Charlotte. Seattle. Washington. In each of them, bishops have restricted, to varying degrees, practices that belong to reverent worship within the Ordinary Form itself. This is not a TLM-only crisis. This is a crisis of the sacred.
In dioceses that have set aside altar rails, restricted the ancient posture of priestly prayer, and discouraged kneeling at Communion, the question of whether TLM Catholics and reform-of-the-reform Catholics can find common cause is not an academic one. It is, in a very practical sense, the question of whether the sacred will survive to the next generation.
“Unite the Clans” has always been an urgent call. In the present moment, it is more urgent than ever, and its scope must be wider than we have yet allowed. Rome has named the wound too: in March 2026 a letter sent on Pope Leo’s behalf asked the bishops of France for “concrete solutions enabling the generous inclusion of those sincerely attached to the Vetus Ordo, while respecting the orientations desired by the Second Vatican Council regarding the liturgy.” Every Catholic who desires to worship God in the beauty of holiness, whether in the ancient rite or the reformed one, belongs inside that circle.
The sacred is not divisible by rite. And neither, in the end, are we.
Domus Dei is dedicated to the promotion and defense of the Catholic Faith in its fullness. We welcome your thoughts in the comments below.
References
- Second Vatican Council, Sacrosanctum Concilium, nn. 36, 116.
- Benedict XVI, Sacramentum Caritatis (2007), n. 35.
- General Instruction of the Roman Missal, n. 299; on the Congregation for Divine Worship’s response of 25 September 2000 (Prot. 2036/00/L), see this account.
- Archdiocese of Detroit, norms of June 2025, as reported by Fr. John Zuhlsdorf and Rorate Caeli and LifeSiteNews.
- Diocese of Charlotte, pastoral letter on norms for Holy Communion (17 December 2025); the priests’ questions to the Holy See, as reported by Catholic World Report (13 January 2026).
- Archdiocese of Seattle, Eucharist norms (revised May 2020), nn. 1.e–1.f.
- Archdiocese of Washington, norms of July 2022, as reported by EWTN News.
- Dicastery for the Doctrine of the Faith, Decree and Explanatory Note (2 July 2026), our translation from the Italian; Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts, Note on the excommunication for schism incurred by adherents of the movement of Archbishop Lefebvre (24 August 1996).
- Pietro Parolin, letter on behalf of Pope Leo XIV to the Plenary Assembly of the Bishops of France, 18 March 2026; English by OSV News in America.